The Haryana incident has shaken up even me

I always felt that I know India's sore points and hence it is quite impossible to shock me with any one event of India that shows her in bad light. But the Haryana incident has proved me wrong. India is possible of murkier events than even I give her (dis)credit for.

A community in Haryana claim their right to reservations in jobs for at least a year and half ---- and no one cares. Then they protest for 4 days and still no one cares. Then things go wrong and violence starts. City after city burns. Trains are stopped on main routes and road traffic is blocked completely. Al this is happens not in a remote corner of North East, but just next to the capital of India, in one of its's most prosperous states. Then curfew is imposed with order that no more than 5 guys can get together and police deploys itself to enforce that order. But all one sees is thousand of protesters swarming around the policemen, who are out to enforce a 'no more than 5 at a time' rule. No one seems unduly perturbed about the rule of law or the lack of it. This much even I would condone in India. As I said, I know her only too well.

Then it explodes. The army is called in. They too deploy but to no great effect. For moving into some areas, the army has to move in by helicopters. Even the army can't move on Indian roads Wow.
Violence erupts. 18 killed, more than a hundred injured, On TV screen, one sees huge cauldrons of fire, taking in vehicles, markets and banks. To my military mind, it looks as if someone has unleashed an incendiary attack on Haryana.

I thought now the representatives of these people, the MLAs. would be seen in their constituencies, pleading with people who voted them in, to stop this and burn the next house 'over their dead bodies'. Why did I think so? Probably influenced by reading in history as to how one frail old man, Mahatma Gandhi, not even an elected representative of Indian people,  stopped the Nohakhali riots single-handedly by moving through people in their madness. What else are leaders meant for? On those days, the India PM was giving political minded speeches in BHU Varanasi, instead of roaming the streets of Haryana.

The protester stop water to neighbouring city - which happens to be India's a capital. India's capital has water left only for a few hours more, at rationed scale. If nothing done, foreign embassies would have to use the diplomatic bag to get water from home country.
Unable to control things, the government gives in. They announce that the demands of protesters will be met. Just beats anyone that if demands were just enough to be met, why then the mayhem?But India never gives answers. It just amazes you.
But the best, or worse, was still to come. It comes to light that on one of the days, vehicles were stopped on road, women dragged out and raped in sight of the family members. Jeans and inner wear of women are seen strewn around and eyewitness say that they saw women dragged in bushes and then -----. But no complainants, which is easily explainable. When Indian police could not protect a high visibility accused ( Kanhaiya of JNU), forewarned and forearmed, INSIDE the sanctum sanctorum of Indian justice, the Supreme Court, only a foolish woman will come forth to give evidence in India. No one want to be raped twice.
No great resentment in India. No government toppled. As for the PM and Home minister, I wonder if they even gave it 10 minutes of their time.
Is India Africa? No. Africa is much more civilized and their elected representative more accountable.
Has this never happened in India before? Yes, worse things have happened. So, why am I so amazed?
Because we have a right to expect that things will get better by each year, not worse. We shouldn't measure civilization with reference to the depravity of yesterday. And also look at the political power structure in this case. The same party rules Haryana and the Centre. The party in power has 282 MPs on it own and close to 330 in the NDA alliance. Such power and also such lack of power!
Yes, India never ceases to amaze me. The bigger problem is that being in such depths of civilization does not bother most Indians. They are quite happy. If you don't even know you are sick, how will you get treated?
The easy acceptance by most of us of such a hellhole, is what shocks even a cynic like me.
Great place, great guys.

Too many martyrs is not a good sign for the army

Praveen Swami, a journalist,  has written well in 'A deep malaise' ( Indian Express - 25 Feb16). However, he has restricted his comments mainly on the shortcomings of the police and para-military forces. I take up here the hallowed territory - Indian army itself. I start by saluting the bravery and commitment of the officers and soldiers and bowing deep to the martyrs. But it is clear to me that they could be better equipped and trained for these ops. We need victories, preferably without martyr.  A CO should almost NEVER have to lead such ops unless caught in an ambush, as happened with Col NJC Nair, AC in 1993 in Nagaland. But today I find too many CO level officers dying, leading ops that should be lead by JCOs. Am not impressed by the line 'our leaders lead from the front'. Leading a unit is not being the pointsman in an assault team. What are the compulsions which force COs to become pointsmen? The only compulsion that comes to mind is that the men will move ONLY if an officer is at the head, even if the subunit is a section (which should have just a havilder at its head).

Just too many well trained regular soldiers dying in own land, to winkle out poorly trained and equipped terrorists, holed up alone in enemy territory (can't compare the time and equipment cost of an Indian army soldier/officer to those of a terrorist).

Our men just do not have the best possible equipment that even today's India can afford to give them a fighting chance to come out alive in a fire-fight. Even our Special Forces do not seem to be having equipment to hear through walls, peep through corners and see through dark and dust. 

And please don't tell me that the guy who has the initiative always has the upper hand. I know that. I also know that when the terrorist strikes first, he has the initiative. But when he is holed up and expects assault on himself from any window, any door, or maybe even the roof, at any time, it is the security forces that the initiative. 

Definitely, the training and equipment of our soldiers, our doctrines and above all, the spine of some of our senior officers to stand up against pressure needs vast improvements. Military history tells me of a great General who once lamented, 'Don't use my men where you should use artillery'. Why aren't the generals of today speaking up? 

If you'll not risk even your career for your men, should they be risking their lives for you?

I end with saluting the bravery and commitment of our martyrs.